I don't think this question will ever have a satisfactory answer. That's also the basic approach Blackburn takes here.

He mentions Leibniz, who thought this question inevitably led to the "final reason of things" which is called God.

Blackburn replies:

when Leibniz poses the riddle of existence, he is presuming that "nothing" is the natural state, the default state, compared with which the existence of anything whatsoever requires explanation. But why should that be accepted?

He says that idea that something is improbable doesn't apply here:

It is not as if we have a trillion cases of there being nothing, and in only one or two of them is there nothing. We have no cases at all to go on.

He does mention the fine tuning of the universe, again saying that we have to be careful of thinking in terms of probabilities. But he also says, rightly, that the anthropic principle is not a satisfying response (the idea that if it wasn't fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to talk about it). He also doesn't think much of the idea of the multiverse, which is just speculation to try to deal with this apparent improbable outcome.

If we imagine another "something" (e.g. God) to have designed the universe, then there is the question of why God exists and not nothing.

And if we are happy replying that they [Gods] just do, then we should be equally happy saying that the world just does.

"The world just does exist" is a highly unsatisfying answer.
If something exists but doesn't have to exist, it is natural to ask why it does.
And there should be an answer.

The anthropic principle is a truism.

ant wrote:"The world just does exist" is a highly unsatisfying answer.
If something exists but doesn't have to exist, it is natural to ask why it does.
And there should be an answer.

The anthropic principle is a truism.

Agreed it's an unsatisfying answer. So is "God did it."

Blackburn's point is that we may not have a good reason to say that "something exists but doesn't have to exist." Why doesn't it have to? We have no basis for saying "nothing" is the "default state."

Sure the anthropic principle is a truism, but I assume you're not defending it as a way to answer the question, or to answer the question of fine-tuning.

Agreed it's an unsatisfying answer. So is "God did it

Why?

ant wrote:Agreed it's an unsatisfying answer. So is "God did it

Why?

Because it's equivalent to saying "something did it." Are you adding any additional content?

Something and Nothing are two opposite ends of the same stick. One can not be without the other.

The question about whether God is is absolute. The answer to that question transpires when you ask it, because it is that that you realise that if what is worrying you wasn't, then you wouldn't be worried about it after all.

The purpose of the universe is so that we can have what is allowing this conversation to take place right now; "the life experience".

The most interesting question to ask yourself is; "do I understand the purpose of my stay here in this time space and feeling environment. Do I understand the purpose of my life?"

The quest to find oneself is interesting in this way www.iansimelane.com, it always ends with finding out who God is. And once that happens, life becomes a breeze and you start living knowing why you are alive.

And if we are happy replying that they [Gods] just do, then we should be equally happy saying that the world just does.

This makes Blackburn happy and a few of the atheists that have written about this, but history tells us that the majority of mankind is not happy with an answer like "it is what it is" or "there is something because there is something" or "we exist because we find ourselves here and that's the end of it"

Blackburn, like everyone else, has a set of beliefs. One of his beliefs seems to be that something exists because it just does.
Nature seems to tell us something different because everything we witness existing has a purpose for its existence.

Can we call Blackburn's answer that "the world exists because it does" knowledge?
I think some people would like to for the purpose of convenience only.

But again, this is actually saying a whole lot of nothing.
Replying with nothing and moving on to say "but god didn't do it" is like responding with a loud noise.

No one is claiming it is a satisfactory answer or "knowledge," not even Blackburn.

You never answered the question, how is "God did it" any different than "Something did it"?

Is there any additional content? Different cultures have different mythologies about creation. Do you believe them all? You must have a lot of negative proofs or else I guess you have to.

Well, no Dexter.

Ant has already said that:

-paraphrasing - it is extremely stupid for a non-believer to say that a supernatural entity doesn't exist.

Ant would never say anything extremely stupid, as demonstrated in his posts, so instead he believes them all. Or at the least, neither confirms nor denies. Because the options as he has outlined are: to believe, or be extremely stupid.

And that's why he has no comment about the real-deal existence of the supernatural entity Odin.